You want to know about Dana Hunter, then, do you? I'm a science blogger, SF writer, compleat geology addict, Gnu Atheist, and owner of a - excuse me, owned by a homicidal felid. I'm the author of Really Terrible Bible Stories vol. I: Genesis. I loves me some Doctor Who and Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers. Sums me up. I'm a Midwest-born Southwesterner transplanted to the Pacific Northwest, which should explain some personality quirks, the tendency to sprinkle Spanish around, and why I'll subject you to some real jawbreakers in the place names department. I'm delighted to be your cantinera! Join me for una tequila. And feel free to follow @dhunterauthor on Twitter. Salud!

Writing

Categories

Categories

Search ETEV

Dana Hunter is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to En Tequila Es Verdad.

EVENTS

Happy Hour Discurso

Can I just mention something? I hate holiday weekends. I’ve just spent the better part of two hours sifting through too many blogs in search of gold nuggets. How’d that go, you ask?

Well, I’m not rich, if that’s what you mean. But I’ve got enough to be comfortable with, and that’s what really matters in the end, eh?

From the department of brilliant Republicon ideas comes advice that’s sure to have every liberal trumpeting its greatness:

The latest “what do we do now?” piece for the Republican Party comes from South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), who outlines his approach in a piece for the Politico today.

There’s some predictable prescriptions — Republicans should, apparently, try sticking to their principles — but this one jumped out at me.

There needs to be a high standard for our franchisees. In other words, I believe Republicans and conservatives must agree on our core principles. St. Augustine called for ‘unity in the essentials, diversity in the nonessentials, and charity in all things,’ and while I believe there should always be a big GOP tent, there must also be a shared agreement on the essentials â€” including expanding liberty, encouraging entrepreneurship and limiting the reach of government in people’s everyday lives.

In this regard, the tent cannot be so big as to include political franchisees who don’t act on the core tenets of conservatism — and as a consequence harm the brand and undermine others’ work on it.

[snip]

If, in context, that means purging, say, convicted felons from the party ranks, it would clearly be sensible. But I don’t think that’s what Sanford means. If I understand his piece correctly, Sanford wants to see a Republican Party that shed itself of factions that fall short of the “core tenets of conservatism” — as defined, presumably, by Mark Sanford — so as to let voters know exactly what they’d get by way of the party label. What the GOP needs now, in other words, is fewer people.

Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly, and might I suggest that one of those core principles be that anyone who doesn’t worship Sarah Palin as the future of the party is right out. And hang on to that philosophy for, oh, say, the next thirty years.

Long enough to allow us to clean up the mess you made.

You know, we have a lot to fear from the Cons. They’re trimming the dead wood (their brains), getting back to core principles (i.e., failed ideology), and, ye gods, they’ve got Bill Kristol. And Bill Kristol knows exactly what Bush should do in order to polish up his legacy:

In his new Weekly Standard column, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol lays out a to-do list for President Bush before he leaves office. He urges Bush to deliver speeches “reminding Americans of our successes fighting the war on terror.” Kristol dreams, “Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror.”

After urging Bush to fight the incoming administration’s desire to close Guantanamo, Kristol concludes with this:

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning–and should at least be vociferously praising–everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

In the Bush era, the Medal of Freedom has come to absurdlyrepresent a reward for those who carried out policy failures at the urging of the Bush administration. By this standard, the implementers of torture and warrantless wiretapping certainly qualify for such a medal.

Oh noes! If Bush follows Kristol’s advice, he’s certain to go from the most reviled to the most revered President in history overnight!11!!1!! Even Think Progress says torturers deserve medals – the logic is inescapable!!11!!1eleventyone!

But really, aren’t we asking for too much? Bush is already working so hard to leave a lasting legacy for our country. Just look what he’s done for edimicashun:

Just as the economic house of cards finally collapsed around George W. Bush and his cronies (and did so a good three months earlier than they’d hoped), the efforts to privatize public schools in order to make them “better” have been increasingly revealed to be less than successful at anything other than weakening education overall while lining the pockets of a fortunate few with our tax monies.

The Bush Administration has just released its final plan to significantly increase logging on 2.6 million acres of public land in western Oregon by clearcutting and reducing protections for salmon-bearing creeks and streams. Rising out of an agreement between the timber industry and the Bush Administration, the Bureau of Land Management’s ‘Western Oregon Plan Revision’ is the gravest threat to Oregon’s ancient forests in years.

The Final Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) will mean the loss of ancient forests from the northern Willamette Valley to southern Oregon’s Siskiyou Mountains.

The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.

The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health.

Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.

With the economy tumbling and American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush has promised to cooperate with Mr. Obama to make the transition “as smooth as possible.” But that has not stopped his administration from trying, in its final days, to cement in place a diverse array of new regulations.

George W. Bush’s fascination with “loyalty” is practically legendary. The president considers it the single most important trait a person in public service can have, far exceeding competence and qualification. Bush, for example, picked Dick Cheney because he knew he’d be loyal (Cheney had no presidential ambitions of his own). Loyalty led to high-ranking posts for all kinds of people who had no business taking on their responsibilities — Alberto Gonzales, I’m looking in your direction — but who were rewarded for their personal devotion and fidelity to the man in the Oval Office.

Slate’s Jacob Weisberg had a good piece today explaining that loyalty is not only wildly overrated in presidential politics, but that truly successful presidents know that an obsession with loyalty is a waste of time and energy.

…I doubt Obama will have much trouble with disloyalty in his administration, from Clinton or anyone else, for the same reason it wasn’t a problem in his campaign: He doesn’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.

Loyalty is a wonderful human quality and a necessary political one. No president would think of moving into the White House without known and trusted advisers such as David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett. At the same time, the recurrent presidential obsession with forms of disloyalty, including leaks, disobedience, and private agendas, is a marker for executive failure. Those presidents who fixated on personal allegiance, such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush, tended to perform far worse in office than those, such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, who could tolerate strong, independent actors on their teams.

[snip]

If one “equates disagreement with disloyalty,” he/she necessarily creates an insular bubble where no one is allowed to stray from the party line, and everyone is expected to agree wholeheartedly with the president,regardless of merit. In this sense, Bush’s obsession with loyalty not only helps explain why incompetent, partisan hacks were promoted to critical government posts, it also helps highlight why never paid attention to those whose opinions he should have taken seriously.

See? He’s done a great job – proving why conservative can’t fucking govern. And don’t forget the legacy he’s leaving when it comes to worldwide reputation in toilet, Constitution in tatters, horrifying precedents set for dictators to follow while being able to claim they’re just living up to America’s standards, a failed economy, and dead people everywhere.

So yes. I’m thrilled to see that some Cons have the idea of making the party even smaller and more parochial than it is now. The last thing I want to see before I’m in my sixties is another Con face beaming from the Oval Office.

I’d like my country to survive until the 22nd century, thanks ever so much.

Related

Comments

And now, Woozle’s Obsessive Commentary on En Tequila. Brought to you by the verification words “dying” and “sillyz”.Actually, getting Repugnicons to set forth a statement of what they actually believe in (rather than leaving us to guess at it by starting with reality and subtracting all the things they like to sneer at) is something I’ve long been in favor of.I can’t count the number of times I’ve run across some Bush-follower argument which seems totally against some of the basic tenets of conservatism (you know: small government, personal responsibility, greater transparency… stuff many of us so-called liberals actually like), but I couldn’t use that as an argument because this particular conservative might or might not agree with the tenet in question.If the GOP comes out and says “we believe these truths to be essential to our party”, then when the above scenario happens again I could at least say “well if that’s what you’re advocating, who are you voting for? The GOP disagrees with you.”I think a lot of the sliminess we’ve been seeing on the right for the past couple of decades comes from being able to claim their ideology is whatever they want it to be in the moment in order to satisfy the current audience. This is how they were able to cram so many different factions into their “Big Tent”, and it’s part of why it’s all falling apart now: the different factions are each realizing they didn’t have exclusive ideological rights to the GOP after all.—Interesting about charter schools nationwide; in our area, the one charter school I have personal experience with is doing an excellent job… but then, it was set up (by liberals) to educate, not indoctrinate.—Saying that political loyalty is overrated and a waste of the president’s time/energy is actually missing the point: It’s fundamentally undemocratic. It sets up the president as an absolute ruler, because subordinates know they can’t expect any loyalty from the president if they choose to disagree with him — even over matters their position requires them to take positions on, like “torture is illegal”.It’s not a waste of time — if your aim is to set up a dictatorship. Bushco came frighteningly close to succeeding, and the game ain’t over yet.Giddyap, Old Paint — it’s on to th’ next post.